This topic is fairly complex. We ARE entering a prolonged period of food scarcity. The agri-businesses are taking acreage out of the set-asides and putting it back into production.

Food prices will rise and rise no matter what we do, and there will be increasing pressure to produce more food not only for the money but to also, you know, stave off starvation.

At the same time there will be pressure to burn our food so we can drive our cars and perhaps lower green house gas emissions.

So there are actually good reasons to want to increase food production which in general means bigger factory farming. It also means less meat but that will happen automatically as prices continue to rise.

Personally I'd drop ethanol subsidies. That is pretty much a no-brainer. Other than that, though, what is the proper trade-off between wildlife and starvation?

A large part of the problem is that the organizations that purport to be a voice for the family farmer are nothing but shills for big agribusiness. It's the same in most industries. The National Association of Homebuilders is a fine example. NAHB markets to small homebuilders and remodelers, takes the money, and then lobbies for programs that benefit large contractors exclusively.

Um, if food prices are rising then we have less need than ever for subsidies, right?

KD: Um, if food prices are rising then we have less need than ever for subsidies, right?

There you go again.

Its really simple, the farm bill lobby has all their (political) ducks lined up. Taxpayers are consumers be damned.

"So why do we hear so much about the dire consequences of failing to pass a piddling bilateral trade deal with a ruthless Latin American regime but almost nothing about the dire consequences of the hideous $300 billion distortion caused by the latest round of farm subsidies — most of which goes to big agribusiness, not struggling family farms?"

Seems like you answered your own question there, Kev.

To take Kevin's question at face value, we hear so much about the Colombian free-trade agreement because that's where something just happened. It's not as though no one reports on the US Farm Bill's monstrosities, but if you want to make it your pet cause, feel free.

"How about a little more noise on the farm front?"

From the farmers taking in money or the nonfarmers who have more important issues to worry about?

Can't we have a sort of fairly uniform sales tax on all imported goods to raise some capital and give domestic production a hand, instead of all those complicated rules?

Um, if food prices are rising then we have less need than ever for subsidies, right?

There you go using rational reasoning again. Yes, using normal economic theory we will have less need for subsidies.

On the other hand we may see increased pressure to prohibit the exportation of food to keep US prices lower. Who's going to win that battle? My guess is big-business will, and their hypocrisy of supporting the 'free market' when it is to their advantage while fighting the 'free market' when it is to their disadvantage will be overlooked by, I dunno, about 27% of the US population.

What was it that Ron Paul said about subsidies? You subsidize something, you get more of it regardless of the market capacity, the environmental and social costs.

So you subsidize ethanol, and you get more corn put into ethanol production and less into food production. Subsidize corn farmers on the Plains and they'll tear up the grasslands for row crops because YOU'RE paying for it, not them. Subsidize hog or beef cattle production and you get huge manure lagoons.

Perhaps there's more issues out there you agree with Ron Paul on than you're willing to admit.

Those are two separate questions, Kevin. Personally, I favor both Columbia free trade and reining in the farm bill. But as long as Iowa has a disproportionate vioice in our presidential election, fixing the farm bill is politically difficult.

Why are you so ambivalent about aiding one of our biggest allies? Currently, most of our products go to Columbia without tarif anyway. Most of the benefit is for us. See here for some background.

The last comment ("two separate questions") was by me.

I agree about the corn ethanol crap. Horribly distorts global agriculture.

And sugar. (Man, I'd love to have an old fashioned Coca Cola from time to time, made with sucrose instead of corn sweetener.)

So why do we hear so much about the dire consequences of failing to pass a piddling bilateral trade deal with a ruthless Latin American regime but almost nothing about the dire consequences of the hideous $300 billion distortion caused by the latest round of farm subsidies — most of which goes to big agribusiness, not struggling family farms?

Because the Fred Hiatts of the world like agribusiness giants and the overseas extension of US copyright laws. They don't give a flying you-know-what if trade unionists get shot.

Kevin Drum: there's little doubt that the biggest remaining distortion in global trade comes in the form of agricultural tariffs and (especially) subsidies

Actually, there's plenty of doubt. Far worse is currency manipulation, excessive "intellectual property" protection, non-agricultural export subsidies, etc.

Furthermore, there are good reasons for many agricultural trade restrictions. India has an average of 112% tariffs on agricultural imports. Without them most of the 700 million people in India who depend on agriculture for a living would find themselves completely destitute (and most of them aren't that far from it now).

American and European ag subsidies? Probably bad for us taxpayers, but not necessarily bad for poor countries. While it's bad for the producers (farmers) there, it's good for the consumers. Estimates are that on balance it probably helps poor countries, especially with soaring food prices. And this doesn't even take into account the fact that in many countries (e.g. Brazil) most of the ag land is held by a handful of people. If prices go up, do you think it helps the farmers who work the land or the people who own the land?

My husband asked me this last week, and I had no good answer other than the subsidy-state legislators had packed the Committees, and Pelosi wants to protect 2006-elected congressfolk from those states.

But as to the fiscal boondoggle, you'd think more folk in Congress would step up, and that the California delegation would be screaming.

I agree there's something about the "business" in "agribusiness" that's important here, along with the tendancy of Americans to identify with the super-rich, thinking we can each become one of them so we don't want to rein them in. (Which could explain why those family farmers who get a pittance from the farm bill aren't screaming about it to their Farm Bureaus.)

As to "Man, I'd love to have an old fashioned Coca Cola from time to time, made with sucrose instead of corn sweetener," there's a local market that imports Coke directly from Mexico, and man-o-man is it goooood.

Cal Gal: there's a local market that imports Coke directly from Mexico

Here in NY it makes more sense to get it from Canada, but AFAIK you have to smuggle it in yourself. Am I missing a business opportunity?

I favor ... Columbia [sic] free trade ... Most of the benefit is for us.

I quite agree, our economy really needs a 0.0000472%/GDP boost - almost a penny per household. Yay, now I can feed my kids!

Even though there are many times more computer gamers in the US than "farmers," we have to give them taxpayers billions. We'll all starve otherwise!

Feeding soybeans and corn to animals wastes ~90% of the calories as opposed to eating Gimme Lean, Tofurky deli slices, Morningstar Meal Starters, etc. directly.

If we were really worried about food shortages perhaps we would not given up 30 million acres of farmland over the past 30 years.

Here is the argument in favor of the Columbian FTA

• This can of Colombian coffee comes into the United States duty-free. But this bottle of Pepsi, made in the USA, pays a stiff 20% tax when sold in Colombia.
  
• These beautiful Colombian flowers -- a major Colombian export -- come into our market and pay zero tariffs. But this box of U.S.-made fertilizer, which helps those flowers grow, is charged up to 15% when exported to Colombia.
  
• This bag of carrots comes into the United States and onto your dinner table without paying any U.S. tariffs. But this tractor, made by Caterpillar in East Peoria, Illinois, faces a 10 percent duty when sold to a Colombian carrot farmer.
  
• This Pennsylvania apple pays a 15 percent tariff when sold in Colombia. Meanwhile, this Colombian banana enters the United States duty-free.

"So why do we hear so much about the dire consequences of failing to pass a piddling bilateral trade deal with a ruthless Latin American regime but almost nothing about the dire consequences of the hideous $300 billion distortion caused by the latest round of farm subsidies — most of which goes to big agribusiness, not struggling family farms? How about a little more noise on the farm front?"

It is because there is no way in hell that the farm bill isn't going through (it would be better for the world if Bush just vetoed it repeatedly but that is never happening); the government is strongly determined to be wrong about it. The free trade agreement could possibly go through (probably the right thing) but could fail. The result isn't determined so we talk about it.

On the merits, the farm bill should be dumped entirely. But like much of politics, the merits have almost nothing to do with it.

Alex said: Here in NY it makes more sense to get it [Coke with sugar] from Canada, but AFAIK you have to smuggle it in yourself. Am I missing a business opportunity?

Passover's coming up; look in the Kosher section. Observant Jews can't consume HFCS during Pesach; it's considered chametz (leavened).

OriGuy: Passover's coming up; look in the Kosher section.

You're right, I forgot that one!

I'm for protesting bad policy but I don't think the demand for sucrose Coke is the place to do it. If there truly was a market for the stuff I can bet that Coke would be selling sugar Coke for a premium.

I'm pretty sure bringing sugar Coke for your own use back from Canada is currently legal. No smuggling involved. It's not like you are trying to save money on prescription drugs or bring in low-flush toilets or something. The outright ban on sugar Coke won't happen until McCain gets elected.

Tripp: I'm for protesting bad policy but I don't think the demand for sucrose Coke is the place to do it.

Oh ye of great solemnity and little imagination. This is why D's loose. If it was to their favor, the R's would be all over this; talking points memos galore. Coke is an American icon! Shall we tolerate this policy which gives a Great American Tradition to foreigners but denies it to Americans themselves?

Alex,

D's lose because we don't easily fall in line behind an authority figure and we (for the most part) disregard irrational slogans.

Thus we bicker about exaggerations like that from Gore/Edwards above. Meat wastes 90% of the calories from corn? My calculations show it is more like 75%. It takes eight pounds of corn to produce one pound of beef but the resultant beef has twice the calories per pound, so it takes 4 calories of corn to produce one calorie of beef.

D's lose because exaggerations work on R's but do not work on D's so it is harder to convince D's of something.

Tripp,

Maybe too much HFCS has gummed up your humor detector.

While there is always a possibility of another Dust Bowl, current farming practices make that unlikely. Farmers no longer turn over the top 12 inches of soil in order to plant their crops as they did back in the 1930's.

The biggest thing would be to stop subsidizing businesses with illegal alien labor. This is an indirect or hidden subsidy since the taxpayer indirectly subsidizes businesses by paying for the costs of the illegals beyond their salaries: medical, mortgage assistance (yes, we have than in Mexinois for "new Americans"), education for the myriad jackpot babies, new infrastructure for the exploding population, greatly increased usage of non-renewable natural resources, and so forth.

American and European ag subsidies? Probably bad for us taxpayers, but not necessarily bad for poor countries. While it's bad for the producers (farmers) there, it's good for the consumers.

Not necessarily, alex. Many of the US and European ag subsidies consist of things like import quotas, guaranteed payments even if a farmer reduces production, and other things that work to keep crop prices high at the same time as guaranteeing payments to farmers. That doesn't benefit poor country consumers at all.

I'm amused by the post by "John McCain: More the Same," considering that Sen. McCain is one better ones in the Senate on opposing the stupid farm bill (he voted against the stupid 2002 bill), the stupid sugar quota, and limiting ag subsidies by income (he cosponsored S. Amendment 3695 to limit subsidies though he missed the vote due to campaigning), and other ag subsidies to agribusiness. Of course, it's just someone's handle, but it is nice to note that this is one area where Sen. McCain does not stand for more of the same. Sen. Obama has been a defender of the farm bill and the sugar quota, though he did also co-sponsor 3695 limiting payments by income, which is good; of course, he does represent Illinois, which has a lot of corn farmers. Of course, income limits for subsidies are always proposed and shot down; they've been included in Bush's proposed budget submitted by the OMB every year only to be laughed off by the Agriculture Committee in a bipartisan fashion.

The farm bill, sadly, is broadly popular with a lot of people, especially in rural areas. To make matters worse, the people who oppose it mostly oppose it weakly; those who are strongly against it are vastly outnumbered by those who strongly support it. Sure, the vast majority of the benefits go to wealthy farmers (not all big agribusiness, but at least those making $100k+ in farming income), but even the less wealthy farmers or non-farmers broadly support the program. Even big agribusiness has employees-- surely you realize that ADM has lots of employees? (Just as how subsidies to various big businesses are often cheered on by unions and workers at those businesses, who provide political support and votes for those controversies.)

I don't even know if vetoing the farm bill repeatedly would work to kill it. Reagan actually vetoed a highway bill once, and that was overridden. I suspect that the same thing would happen to the farm bill.

Daniel Imhoff also pretends in his article that the new scraps thrown to "specialty crops" outside the Big Four are "worthy new programs." In my opinion, they are not worthy at all; the big farm bill backers have bought off a large chunk of the opposition to the farm bill for a tiny amount. (Resisting the urge to use "chicken feed" or "peanuts" imagery.) Subverting more farmers into farm bill supporters is hardly positive. The big farm interests found it a small price to pay to get the "specialty farmers" to switch their position.

They're claiming that the have a deal.

“If the White House is stupid enough to veto this, they’re going to get overridden,� House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) told Politico. “That’s where we’re at right now.�

Bush has been claiming that he'll veto because it's too expensive, and the threat is being laughed off as "irrelevant" by Chairman Peterson, who says it'll be overridden.

It's not a D or R thing.

It does seem like Sen. Baucus's fund, mentioned in Daniel Imhoff's article, will be dropped, so that's something.

Oh, and BTW, the much maligned "direct payments" that the White House supports but are inviting ridicule are the conservation payments that farmers can get (even if) they return their fields to nature and employ conservation techniques. People ridicule them because farmers get paid for not growing crops. However, economists believe that if you're going to subsidize farmers, it's less distortionary to do so with flat payments regardless of behavior than subsidies for particular crops or import quotas or other things that change behavior and cause overproduction and all its attendant problems.

Alex,

Maybe too much HFCS has gummed up your humor detector.

Actually I think my humor detector has been turned off. I've been on a mission lately and that has turned off my detector. A lot of seemingly unrelated pieces have fallen into place for me and my vague ideas have come into better focus.

So either I'm gaining better understanding of what has been happening or I'm closer to the looney bin. Or both. Sometimes I wish I'd kept my head in the sand and stuck to science and technology. Computers are easy compared to people.

I'd like to take exception to Kevin's "biggest remaining distortion in global trade." The biggest distortion in human relations, never mind trade, is the long, ongoing, unrelenting transfer of wealth from the poorest people on Earth to the wealthiest.